Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IA-32

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are few valid reasons for deletion presented. Most of the issues raised are things that could be solved by editing. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IA-32

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article mostly duplicates x86 and i fail to see any difference between the subjects of these two articles. ï¿½ (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep What's the problem with duplication of content? We don't have to pay for it. We're not short of bytes to store it.

x86 is an article of massive scope. IA-32 is one tiny slice of this. A notable slice. If there's overlap, we just duplicate. That isn't a problem.

Even if the entire IA-32 article was duplicated wholesale into x86 (which per UNDUE I doubt is for the best anyway) there would still be a justifiable case for a stand-alone IA-32 article that described the business of IA-32 and avoided excess baggage. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for the following reasons:

Nominator's statement alleging WP:CFORK is blatantly false: The subject is clearly not the same. In addition, how can a 3.8 KB article "mostly duplicate" a 79.7 KB (20x larger) article? The nominator is simply making the same mistake explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing § x86 versus IA-32.
Nominator has filed this nomination only one 1.5 hours after putting a merger tag on the article, which was removed by User:Dsimic because a merger discussion was not correctly started. This nomination is clearly a retaliatory action.
This article has established its notability. It has the merit to be an individual article.
According to WP:SIZERULE, x86 article needs to be split. This article is an excellent target for receiving specialized contents.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, I've reverted the discussionless merger tag while pointing to Talk:IA-32 § Get rid of it section for an insight into previous discussion – there's simply little to no point in tagging articles that way, without investing some time first into describing the merger proposal. As already described above by Andy Dingley and Codename Lisa, IA-32 is a very notable subset of the x86 architecture, and by no means IA-32 article should be deleted – it might only be expanded further, and x86 article (due to its size) is a good candidate for moving some content over. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of silly really... x86 is not in any way formally defined, or even official (although I have nothing against using it), so you cannot really reason about subsets here. IA-32 appeared in the mid 1990s, aiming at the P6-compatible designs of the time, while x86 may refer to the 80286 of 1982, or the 8086 of 1978, so it would actually be closer to the truth to say that IA-32 is a superset of x86, instead of the other way round (as x86 is not x86-64).

"x86" was coined in the mid 1980s and adopted by programmers as a (slighly humorous) umbrella term for the 8086/88 and 80286 used in the IBM PC compatibles of the day and the new 80386 (originally) employed by Compaq PCs. Later on, this would naturally include 80486, Pentium, P6, etc. (although not always the 80186/88). During the late 1990s or 2000s, "x86" started to catch on in larger circles and became almost a household name.

Although Intel often stressed the (backward) compatibility between their processor designs, they had no single formal terminology at the time. Several names and terminologies was used in papers and manuals (8086-family, iAPX 286, 80386-architecture, i486-architecture, etc.), so i386 was a short and convenient term for assembly and compiler directives and similar.

Many years later, Intel management came up with another name, IA-32, for the updated P6-instruction set (implemented in Pentium Pro and onwards). This was most likely an attempt by Intel's marketing to help their IA-64-architecture (Itanium) to survive, trying to hide the incompatibiliy for the general public by a confusingly similar name (unfortunately for Intel, writers of compilers, device drivers, and the like, had to know the real deal).

I'm 50 years old electronics engineer and compiler writer so I recall most of this first hand. 83.253.224.65 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your whole explanation makes sense, thank you for correcting my wrong description. Using this as a reference, I've already corrected the IA-32 article. Any chances, please, for a few more references, so we can update/correct the article(s) further? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsimic: Sorry pal, but I am afraid that is wrong. The article by Ronald W. Green only applies to Intel compilers and libraries and is there to support the "metonymy" part. (Hence the mistake of our allegedly 50 years old compiler writer.) Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual clearly states that "The Intel386 processor was the first 32-bit processor in the IA-32 architecture family. It introduced 32-bit registers for use both to hold operands and for addressing." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, accuracy of the article content is all that matters. That reference clearly trumps the one I've used. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nom. is wrong flat. Smells like a WP:POINTy revenge. Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Gaming the system. 83.253.224.65 is saying something else; that we've been wrong since 25 September 2001; 23 years ago (2001-09-25). Let's say he is right. The solution wouldn't be a simple '''delete'''; it would be '''retribution and make amends'''. And that'd be one hell of an amendment. That's what Talk pages are for. Acting like a total WP:DICK (like this AfD is doing and like edit number 324609218) only creates resistance. Fleet Command (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article should be deleted and merged into article x86. Necessary corrections should also be made to X86.

Reason:

1. x86 is not an architecture name. It is only used to refer processors and associated instruction set. IA-32 is the official architecture name to address this associated instruction set. There are no relations of overlap, intersection, inclusion and the like between them both.

2. Similar with x86, x86-64 is not an architecture name too. AMD64 is the official name to address this 64-bit extended instruction set, because its design mostly based on the existing IA-32 architecture, so Intel also refer their 64-bit extension compatible implementations as Intel64 processors. There is no relation of inclusion between x86-64 and x86, or exactly, AMD64 or Intel64 is not superset of IA-32.

3. Besides the facts above, this article fails to detail the IA-32 architecture, following the belief of article X86, confuse and mislead readers about what IA-32 really is. So I recommend this article deleted, merged into X86 with necessary adaptions. Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems conspiracy theories haven't gone out of style after all. Even if you could show a source as asked in talk page, none of these are reasons for deletion: Wikipedia can have article on stuff that aren't "architecture". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to the WORD, PHRASE, TERM and so on you use! This main article is too brief to detail the IA-32 architecture, even though I go against my grain to accept that x86 is an architecture name, I would have millions reasons to suggest this article to be removed. Is that enough? Codename Lisa, if you continue talk about something meaningless, I won't make any reply to you! Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Every time I say "source", you evade by making a person attack like this. Regardless, you do need a source. As for your one million reasons, we definitely like to read those that are compliant with Wikipedia deletion policies. The rest, I am afraid, are not even worth mentioning. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to hurt anybody. Frankly, I don't have a source to be easily referred, but I still stick to my belief. Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs should always be respected, but Wikipedia works by summing up reliable sources. That's nothing personal, only the way the thing works. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But What is the reliable sources saying x86 is an architecture name? Personal? Oh no, what such a stupid word! I've no passion to greet any guy here. Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't take it like that, it's nothing personal. Here are a few references you've asked for:

Makes more sense? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.